Balance of Food

Slider Bites: Bugging about eating more insects for protein

Grasshoppers and ants vs. cows and chickens. We know which group is more appetizing to eat, but the UN agency Food and Agriculture Organization is encouraging more of us to add the insects to our diets.

While the discussion is mostly about protein, eating insects is more about greenhouse gases and excessive feed caused by maintaining so many cows.

The organization notes that 2 billion people worldwide consume insects for protein and minerals.

Depending on your eating status, you may already be enjoying several levels of ways to get protein from beans and legumes to quinoa to Greek yogurt to whey powder. Beans, legumes, and nuts also have small footprints, though not as small as cicadas.

Let's be clear: if you put bugs in chocolate or garlic powder or the substance that goes on Flamin' Hot Cheetos, Americans will eat it. If you put bugs on a stick and deep-fry them, Americans will eat it, even if the bugs themselves are nutritious.

---

Speaking of protein, Oscar Mayer's new Bacon Dogs offers bacon in the mix. And not just any bacon … Oscar Mayer Bacon. They mixed bacon in with the other meats in an otherwise typical Oscar Mayer hot dog. Now, once you heat/cook them, how much bacon are you really getting?

Again, if you really want the bacon experience, take some bacon (heck, even Oscar Mayer bacon) and cook it up. Put the bacon inside a hot dog bun, add your favorite condiments, and have a true bacon dog. You will get more taste and still get some nitrates in your system. Bacon with a bit of chili and a dash of mustard on a hot dog bun. Mmmmmmm.

---

Growing organic foods fall perfectly under the definition of conservative with a small "c." Old-fashioned, tried and true, nothing fancy, what your grandparents literally did. Yet organic foods rile up conservatives against them because they're seen as "left-wing hippies food."

This exchange, courtesy of The Huffington Post, illustrates how backwards this discussion is in Washington.

When Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., a former organic farmer, offered an amendment to make it easier for organic companies to organize industry-wide promotional campaigns, there was swift backlash from some farm-state Republicans. One lawmaker said he didn't want to see the industry get a free ride and a second complained about organics' "continued assault on agriculture."

"That's one of the things that has caught me and raises my concerns, is that industry's lack of respect for traditional agriculture," said Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga. He was referring to some organic companies' efforts to reduce the number of genetically modified crops in the marketplace.

At the same time, Scott acknowledged that he and his wife buy organic foods.

GMOs are not about traditional agriculture … unless you're 20. Organic is traditional agriculture … literally. Sigh.

The good news for Scott and his wife is when they do buy organic foods, they are being conservative. Scott just needs to convince himself in the mirror that he is being conservative when it comes to organic foods. Trying to convince Scott that GMOs are radical? That will take a much longer time.

---

With all the whining from fast food companies about Obamacare, which won't kick in for most Americans until 2014, turns out their fears won't be realized.

A recent Barclays analyst's note studied the issue and pointed out that a number of employees are young people can stay on their parents' insurance plans to 26, an element of Obamacare that is already into effect. So most of those employees won't have the issue. The exception would be those without parents or without access to their insurance plans.

As for older adults who are making their living working in fast food, we also know that they aren't getting paid enough, as we've seen in protests in several major cities, Detroit being the latest. Obamacare will give them the chance to buy their health insurance if their employers don't offer insurance. Then again, the wages of a fast food worker might not be enough to buy insurance, though the plans are adjusted based on income.

The idea of paying $3-$4 for a fast food meal into perpetuity is a ridiculous notion. Cheap can only go so far, and you pay your employees more money, they can afford to eat at your restaurants more often.

---

If you don't eat well, especially as an American, you might be ashamed about being photographed with a week's worth of food. Now try representing your whole country.

Came across this story about a book where a typical week's worth of food in a country is photographed along with a family from that country.

The pictures illustrate the huge contrasts between countries over what constitutes typical meals. The U.S. and Canada don't hold up well. Some less-off countries actually look like they eat better.

Slider bites: Chris Christie's lap band surgery

Chris Christie announced that he did undergo lap-band surgery back in February to try and lose weight. This isn't news except that Christie is currently the governor of New Jersey and might be a presidential contender in 2016.

Now Christie might have been a presidential contender even without the surgery. After all, the country might have a backlash to a president who isn't as fit as Barack Obama.

The lap-band surgery isn't as extreme as other surgical options, so losing the weight slower, besides being healthier as a role, might look better in someone who could reasonably run for president in 2016.

Weight-loss surgeries aren't a guarantee. And Christie could lose some of his charm in being thinner. Or if he loses weight, but "not enough" for some, then the move could backfire politically.

Christie would be better off weighing less than he does now, and ideally, he can learn new ways to deal with food so the surgery will prove more effective.

---

Ice cream is nice when you're hot and on vacation. Chances are ice cream isn't as nice when you pay 16 euros for the experience.

4 British tourists in Rome paid 64 euros for 4 ice creams at the Antica Roma bar and gelateria near the Spanish Steps.

The manager said the amount per person was more than 2 scoops. But even Italian ice cream isn't worth 16 euros.

There may have been some language issues, some places charge more if you stay and eat (they didn't), and they did leave with the cones and without their money.

I remember ordering 1 baguette in a bakery in Paris and the woman gave me two and charged me for two. That was a language issue. But if I really wanted one, I would have said so.

Yes, the gelateria overcharged. But you have to think a little even on vacation.

---

The FDA is looking into possibly regulating caffeine. Yawn! Laudable that the FDA should look into this, but reality will prevent any difference making. One rule that would help is requiring any product that has caffeine to list how much caffeine is in that product.

The knowledge could backfire in that some people will find the most caffeine and consume those products. But knowledge is power and right now, most consumers are powerless.

---

McDonald's decided to drop its Angus burger, and the implication was this was due to the "high" price of beef. When the vast majority of our cows is being fed GMO-corn subsidized by the government, one of the few problems with that beef is cost.

While Angus is more premium than regular beef, it doesn't stack up to grass-fed. With the unusual toppings on the Angus burger and McD's reluctant/refusal to market the burgers, no wonder that they will disappear from the menu almost as quietly as they appeared.

I mourned the loss of the McLean burger way back when. I never even thought to try the Angus burger.

---

Alex Jamieson recently decided to stop being a vegan and once again eating meat. Jamieson is the long-time girlfriend of Morgan Spurlock that you might remember from "Super Size Me."

If life were a battle between eaters of animals and those who don't, this would be considered a victory for the animal eaters side.

In reality, she made a choice to go where her body said she wanted to go. In life, people will choose to be vegan or vegetarian, or go vegan before 6 (Mark Bittman), or only eat bacon for meat, or those who do weekend indulgences.

It's not like Jamieson turned into what Spurlock did in the film.

---

Don't instantly trust studies, but liked this one that said teenagers were getting comparable calorie counts from ordering meals at McDonald's and Subway.

The average comparison was pretty close with 1,038 calories at McDonald's vs. 955 calories at Subway.

Subway notes that its meals have less fat, but people are getting plenty of calories and sodium from the "healthier" meals.

---

With that spirit in mind, we will occasionally post notebooks, a non-fancy journalism term for thoughts about the beat in short, profound analysis between a tweet and an actual blog post. Fans of our sister blog, CanadianCrossing.com, know all about notebook columns.

Food Bites seemed cornier than normal, so I went with Slider Bites, because sliders are mockingly too small. A bite from a slider is hardly a bite at all.

'A Place at the Table' shows making hunger visible leads to solutions

Even food-related situations that are visible can get lost in the shuffle. But no food-related situation is as invisible as hunger.

"A Place at the Table" did its earnest to put a face on that place at the table. We got three concrete examples, though Rosie from Colorado stole the show. The film didn't spend as much time with Tremonica, the 2nd grade girl from Mississippi. And Barbie's Philadelphia story was more about the hunger of her young kids, too young to really tell us what they were feeling. Rosie talked to us about how hunger impacted her school day and concentration. Even though Rosie's life has a lot of problems — she sleeps on the floor of the laundry room and shares that floor with her sister — she comes across as upbeat, further masking the ramifications of what hunger does to her life.

The teachers in the two stories involving school-age children are heroes in their own way. Rosie's teacher is tough with her on why she can't pay attention in class, but later we learn about her own childhood where she went hungry and watch her deliver food to her neighbors, including Rosie and her family. Her anguish as she delivers mostly starches to these families exemplifies the tragic irony of hunger: underfed and overweight.

Previous coverage: Temptation of the Week: 'A Place at the Table'

Tremonica's 2nd-grade teacher sees that world as she is diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes while Tremonica has asthma and is overweight. The simple act of teaching her students the art of appreciating honeydew melons is a beautiful, lasting lesson.

Pastor Bob in Colorado is also a hero. He develops an after-school day care where kids are fed. His food pantry has to grow to try and meet the ever-growing need for food.

Contrary to the inaccurate stereotype, these people are working. Rosie's mom is a waitress who makes $120 every two weeks, yet that is "too much" for food stamps. When Barbie does land a job, ironically helping others who are hungry to get help, she still can't afford to feed her kids well. Tremonica's mom has to drive 66 miles round trip because she can't find fresh vegetables in her Mississippi town.

Marion Nestle had an intriguing graph in the film, noting that the price of fresh fruit and vegetables has gone up 40% since 1980, yet the relative price for processed food has declined 40% over same time period. We all expect the former to happen; the latter takes some work and screwed up priorities.

The obesity issue in this country is visible in part because we can see it either in person on the street or as headless fat people in TV news stories on obesity. Obesity gets a lot more coverage than hunger, especially on TV. But as "A Place at the Table" demonstrates, the two problems go hand in hand. And we do need to talk a lot more about hunger. The best way to talk about hunger is to make that problem visible.

New York City soft drink ban should be complete or not at all

The soft drink ban in New York City was overturned by a New York State Supreme Court justice because the new law was "arbitrary and capricious." Which means that we are as smart about the law as a New York State Supreme Court justice.

For those who are greatly concerned about the impact of soda pop in our society, you should be relieved and upset about the ruling, the same reaction — for different reason — you would have if the law was now in effect.

You could get a large soda pop at a 7-11 but not a movie theater. You can get a large soda pop at a movie theater if it was diet. This certainly qualifies as "arbitrary."

Capricious is the fancier legal word used by the judge. While the word means "given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior," the use fits in with arbitrary in the sense that the randomness of the law doesn't effectively deal with the issue.

Political legislation is a flawed process, no matter how good the intentions of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and advocates for reducing soda pop consumption. Even by those standards, this law had serious holes.

Previous coverage:

Chicago's proposed 'sugary drinks' tax doesn't add up

Temptation of the Week: Fat tax

Bloomberg and New York City can still get the point across without being so arbitrary. If the issue is serving sizes, then you need to ban the serving sizes, whether that be diet pop, orange juice, Red Bull, or regular soda pop.

The fast food calorie boards didn't apply to every New York City restaurant; the law applied to businesses with large enough sales (chains) and not to mom-and-pop places. In other words, you could target Big Gulp sizes but let a local restaurant serve a 20 oz. drink. Fair, no. Legal? Probably.

If the issue is the damage done by high-fructose corn syrup, then set a ban of any serving size of a drink featuring high-fructose corn syrup. You would see a lot of Mexican Coke, er, Coca-Cola in New York City. That law might still be too arbitrary but would be more useful.

Conformity within the law can sometimes backfire as well. Take Chicago's soft drink tax. The tax is supposed to offset the obesity issue by making soft drinks more expensive. Except the drinks with high-fructose corn syrup, which receives federal subsidies, are treated the same as drinks with sugar, which is artifically higher thanks to federal policy. This meets the requirement of equality, but punishes those who choose better options.

Law writing never should be truly easy, but some problems require more complex solutions. Removing federal subsidies from corn products would do more good in New York City than any of Bloomberg's proposals. Since that isn't happening anytime soon, Bloomberg is working with a disadvantage. Just means his quest will take longer and require more thought.

A smartly written law will have a more meaningful impact than one poorly written, and the general public will respect it more. Jon Stewart will miss having this as a target of ridicule, but even he would want a better written law to deal with the impact of obesity caused in part by huge soft drink sizes.

Temptation of the Week: 'A Place at the Table'

Daily Show Part I

Daily Show Part II

Food budgets are tricky, but many people feel like they can save money on food and still eat pretty well. If we looked at the way the United States spends its food budget, we would find too much money spent on corn subsidies and direct and indirect payments to large conglomerate farms. We have matching issues of starvation and obesity.

"A Place at the Table," opening this weekend, helps us to visualize what it means to be hungry.

The statistics cited are startling: 50 million people in the United States, including 25% of children, don't know where they will get their next meal. So many wonder: where is the disconnect and why?

Since the economy is better than it was, society has less sympathy for those who struggle to find food. Then again, the invisibility increases because people are reluctant to admit that they are hungry.

Directors Kristi Jacobson and Lori Silverbush take us to Collbran, Colorado; Jonestown, Mississippi; and Philadelphia to give us three stories about the different ways people are hungry in this country.

"This is really solvable," Silverbush said on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." "We know what causes hunger; we know how to fix it."

The film points out that hunger in the United States was pretty much solved by the late 1970s. The "Hunger in America" film that aired on CBS in 1968 is referred. Within two weeks, Congress passed bipartisan legislation. CBS followed up 10 years later to see that the hunger problem got better (yes in pre-cable news, TV journalists would follow up on complex topics).

Why did things change? "In a word, Reagan," Silverbush said to Stewart.

The directors pointed out that this country went from 200 food banks to 40,000 food pantries and banks, yet the hunger problem was "too big for those groups to handle," Jacobson said to Stewart.

They point out that 80% of people on SNAP are working poor. "Poor people need a better lobby," Stewart said.

The timing of the release of the film obviously wasn't scheduled as the same day of the sequestration, but the directors did point out that the government cuts means that 600,000 mothers and infants will lose formula.

The hope from the directors and everyone involved in the film is for as many people to see this film as possible. But the underlying purpose is to get people involved in helping those who don't have enough to eat, and getting people with food to be able to afford better choices.

At a dinner table around the holidays, we always say that there is room for one more. Well, America has a table and 50 million in the United States are looking for a place at that table.

"A Place At The Table" opens today in theatres. If you don't live near one of the theatres, the film is available on iTunes and OnDemand.

Editor's note: My plan is to see the film and review it for you in the near future. Feel free to let you know what you think if you see the film.

Barack Obama has 4 more years to improve U.S. food supply, but we need to help

Around Noon Eastern, we will have almost 4 more years of the Barack Obama Administration. We saw wonderful legislation signed in his first two years, only some of which is finally coming to fruition in 2013 (food safety improvements).

The nightmares of a parallel universe where Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan help decide about food safety, school lunch, and farm subsidies should finally ease up. We can bemoan that not much will get done until 2015 thanks to the Republican-led House, but we can reflect on Inauguration Day that we don't live in that parallel universe.

Obama's second term is a painful reminder that if progressives and food enthusiasts want change that will last, time is ticking away. A Democratic person could be elected president in 2016, but they may not be as enthusiastic about the cause, and certainly not have a First Lady (Spouse) as passionate as Michelle Obama.

As we've learned from the delayed Farm Bill, even those who identify as Dem aren't always onboard with changing, or as we put it, going back to Grandma's time. Seriously, those who are conservative should be on the same wavelength as progressives on the ills of our food supply. One of the issues is that many on the right – yes, the Tea Party folk, love corporations as much as they hate the government.

Liberals don't love government as much as conservatives think they do. Liberals want taxes to be collected responsibly to do things for society that private society can't/won't accomplish on its own. And to get out of the way in areas where government ruins things (subsidizing corn, giving farm subsidies to rich people without farms).

Conservatives, rather Tea Party people, don't like government, unless it is the business of killing people who aren't from here. They whine about the debt, so they could be on board with reductions in subsidies for corn and no more farm subsidies for rich people. They may not be happy with increases for school lunch programs or rising food prices, even if U.S. food is the cheapest per capita of developed nations.

The odd disconnect is their love for corporations, as if they are rooting for companies to be deceptive in their labels and to make food as cheap as possible, ingredients be damned. Conservatives are by nature old-school, except on food. They appreciate traditions and traditional means of food, along with progressives, but the results don't match up in the pantries and on the dinner tables.

As much as we would love the federal government to do more about the food supply, not much will get done for 2 more years. If the stars align, the Dems grab back the House and scramble to hang on to the Senate in 2014, Obama and his people have 2 more years to build on 2009-2011. And they will have a lot on their plate, as it were – gun violence, climate change, immigration – so food can easily be lost in the shuffle.

Let's be honest; even if all of that happens, Obama isn't lightning on getting things done. In other words, holding our breath until the Dems take back the House of Representatives will result in lots of unnecessary oxygen losses.

Grassroots, or literally grass grassroots, may be the way to convince those who don't trust progressives too much that food is really important to the growth and improvement of our society. Everything doesn't have to be organic or cooked in foam to make a difference. Changes can be simple, inexpensive, and worthwhile to even the most hardened people.

Progressives waited for years for help from Washington. 2009-2011 showed more improvement from the nation's capital than any 2 years in recent memory. But change can't come just from Washington; if people stand up for a better food supply, there are many in Washington who will help. They can't and won't do it alone; they need your help.

Some other famous president said at his inauguration: “As k not what your country can do for you; Ask what you can do for your country.” You have 4 more years, starting today.

School lunch reform happens quicker when conservatives whine

Those who wanted a non-inflationary increase in the reimbursement of school lunches had to wait almost two generations (1973-2011) and even then, could only get a 6¢ increase.

A couple of schools complain about the calorie count and how they're "starving"? They didn't even have to wait 3 months.

The Department of Agriculture is getting rid of limits on grains and meats for school lunches. While the calorie limits are still in place theoretically, the rules change allows for unlimited grains (bread, etc.) and meat. Sounds a lot like what schools used to do. Sigh!

We laughed at the lame video from the school in Kansas. We mocked the kids in Wisconsin who couldn't survive on 850 calories for lunch. And yet, the powers that be listened to them and made those changes as soon as they could.

These small protests made an impact on a group of senators who complained to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. The senators are lead by John Hoeven (R-ND) and also include John Barrasso (R-WY), Dan Coates (R-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Mike Enzi (R-WY), James Inhofe (R-OK), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jon Tester (D-MT), and John Thune (R-SD).

We hear a lot about government interference in what our school kids are eating/should be eating. Then again, government interference got these specific changes revoked pretty quickly. Government interference protected potatoes and counted tomato paste as a vegetable.

When "government interference" tries to help kids eat better in the school system, cries of "big brother" rang out. This government interference: "working out the kinks."

Previous coverage:

850 calories argument makes for good TV, but falls short on honesty

Mukwonago students strike because their lunches are 'only' 850 calories

The divide is not purely along party lines in Congress; still waiting for a prominent Republican politician to step up in favor of school lunch reform. A number of Democratic politicians also run scared of helping school kids eat better.

So maybe this is a liberal/conservative split about whether school lunches should be improved and made healthier. True, but there is another faction at work.

Politicians from farm states treat the USDA and the school lunch program as a dumping ground for whatever crops were grown. Fruits and vegetables don't count in their eyes, but grains and meat do.

For these politicians, this isn't about Republican or Democratic, obesity or fitness. This is about patronage, government subsidies for their crops. This is the type of government interference that the citizens in those states would normally blast their representatives for doing.

When these citizens perceive that this is "good government interference," you hear nary a peep. When Michelle Obama and liberals want to help these kids eat better, well, that is "bad government interference."

We have argued in these pages that government does good and bad for the school lunch program and farm subsidies. If these programs thought more about the children and less about selfish political interests, that would be good government — not interference but help.

Diet, exercise help you find balance in your personal 'fiscal cliff'

The battle in Washington over the fiscal cliff is whether we will use a variety of ways to reduce the deficit or just try one thing to make the budget better.

The battle within our own fiscal cliff is whether we will use a variety of ways to reduce the stomach or just try one thing to make the stomach better.

Here at BalanceofFood.com, we don't talk much about exercise because, well, we are all about nutrition and food. Exercise is important, but this doesn't fall within our expertise. Exercise is crucial to improving your body, but I struggle more with exercise than with food.

Like most people, I know to move. When in doubt, walk. If winters stay relatively mild (thanks global warming), walking more would be a side benefit.

We already practice "fiscal cliff" methods in our lives. Have the second plate of pasta? Know our workout has to be 10 minutes longer. Don't want to go out in the cold? Avoid the second cookie.

Sometimes we make promises to ourselves in anticipation of future activities. Have an extra serving of French fries on Wednesday, spend an extra 45 minutes walking on Saturday. Not much different than what they are doing in Washington.

Leadership. Sacrifice for the common good. Realistic expectations. No matter where you sit along the political fence, you need these traits in Washington … and in your own lives.

Dieting, like austerity, sounds good, but isn't healthy or useful. Eating that is out of control without any concern isn't good for you, either.

The biggest difference is that you aren't a politician who has to satisfy party leaders or political philosophy or constituents that may vote you out of office. The only person you have to satisfy is you in avoiding your own fiscal cliff.

NYC fast food workers have to work 58 minutes for Starbucks $7 coffee

If the striking fast food workers in New York City wanted to buy the new $7 Starbucks Costa Rica Finca Palmilera coffee, they would have to work 58 minutes (before taxes) for a cup. If a server in a restaurant wanted that same $7 cup of coffee based on salary alone at the federal level, that server would have to work over 3 hours — 197 minutes — for that cup of coffee.

Those workers that make $2.13 an hour are supposed to receive money to reach the $7.25 minimum wage level in case the tips don't make a difference. In reality, that doesn't always happen.

Tomato pickers in Florida had a difficult time getting fast food restaurant companies to pay 1¢ more a pound for tomatoes.

Fast food companies push to keep their items as cheap as possible since consumers turn fickle at paying pennies more for their microwaved burgers, fries, and sugary drink.

Papa John's whined about the idea that Obamacare could make the cost of a pizza go up by 15¢.

We don't want to buy something we need from the grocery store unless that item goes on sale. We would drive to a rival grocery store, spending more than we save on gas, to pay 20¢ less for that item. Yet we live in a country where food is incredibly cheap.

The tip wage was tied in as a percentage of the minimum wage, mostly at 50%. On January 1, 1979, the percentage increased to 55% and by January 1, 1980 jumped up to 60% of the minimum wage.

You might recall that the minimum wage when Ronald Reagan took office on January 20, 1981 was $3.35/hour. When Reagan left the White House 8 years later, the minimum wage was still $3.35/hour.

Tipped employees in that time made $2.01/hour — 60% of the minimum wage. When the minimum wage (finally) went up in 1991, the percentage was lowered back to 50%. So the minimum wage was $4.25 and the tip wage was $2.13.

In a time where "Twin Peaks" was a huge hit, Johnny Carson still hosted the "Tonight" show, and just months before the world was introduced to Clarence Thomas, $2.13/hour for a tip wage wasn't great. In a world of artificially low wages, $2.13/hour wasn't bad.

As the minimum wage went up, the tip wage stayed flat. So now, the tip wage, as a percentage of the minimum wage is now at 29%.

Even if you think servers should receive less than the minimum wage (not keeping up with inflation), to pay them 50% would give them a raise to $3.63/hour, a 70% raise. Then again, when you haven't had a raise since the year newly legal drinkers were born, you should get back pay.

We eat out by ordering at fast food counters, and sitting down to fancy meals, and juggling food and drink in the car from the drive-through, and sitting on our keisters while others deliver us food. The food is cheap, fixed in haste, the service people are paid low to miniscule wages, and we wonder why the fries are always cold.

A few extra seconds of thought and a little more money would elevate the dignity of the transactions. Better yet, we should fight to get all workers in the entire food process closer to where they should be.

Andrea Tantaros should know food stamps lead to weight gain, not loss

"I should try it because, do you know how fabulous I'd look? I'd be so skinny. I mean, the camera adds 10 pounds, it really does. I would be looking great."

Fox News Channel contributor Andrea Tantaros from "The Five" was on "Varney and Company" responding to the challenge that Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker gave to one of his Twitter followers to live on the equivalent of $133/month for a week.

Tantaros should give the challenge a try. Forget about surviving on food stamps for a week; she should try for a whole month.

Tantaros will find out that she will gain weight, not lose it.

The healthy food that she eats because she can afford to eat well won't be as available when factoring in a $133 budget for 30 days. A Starbucks drink costs more than a day's worth of food. On that kind of a budget, cheap carbohydrates and fatty meats are on the menu.

Even if Tantaros could survive on such a tight budget for food, she would have better access to grocery stores than many of those in New Jersey who have to live on food stamps.

From the clip, Tantaros is in rather good shape. The camera shows her and her legs, a normally unusual camera angle. So she could afford to gain a few pounds.

If someone such as Tantaros, with her level of ignornace on the impact of cheap food and food stamps, would gain weight and talk about that on television, that perspective would do more to raise the image of food stamps than any publicity stunt from a liberal or progressive politician.